Read through most of the babble and charts.What I come up with is.I live in Redmond and I cannot conceal carry a knife with a blade longer than 3"?What about open carry?Can I have a 7" fixed blade, open carry on my back pack shoulder strap. (say that fast 10 times-backpack shoulder strap-lol)\I just bought a cold steel 4" folder for my EDC>Bummer, off to look at new 3" knife.

-dimwit-

Ya, my answer is probably in someones post, but I just got up from my nap and the energy drink hasn't kicked in.

Here were my thoughts at the time of reading the story as expressed to a friend:

So the judges argument to uphold the case is that the knife isn't a weapon and therefore cant be protected under the 2nd amendment. Yet the charges in the case are "unlawful use of weapons", ​based on a city ordinance that declares it illegal for someone to “carry concealed or unconcealed…any dangerous knife.” So how could the guy be charged with unlawful use of a weapon if the object in question is not, according to the court, a weapon and further to that the guy wasn't using it as a weapon at the time?!?!?! Am I the only one that sees the ridiculous amount of cognitive dissonance required to believe this line of so called logic?

It either IS a weapon and therefore is protected under the 2nd amendment and could be construed by a "reasonable person" (in this circumstance as described) as being "used" or carried as a defensive weapon OR; The knife is not a weapon and therefore NOT protected by the 2nd amendment AND therefore, given that this person was by all outward signs peacefully driving along minding his own business a "reasonable person" would conclude that the knife was on his person for some legitimate and legal use consistent with its design intent, i.e. maybe the guy really liked f&*%ing pears!

Focusing on the original design intent of the object in question is a seriously flawed starting point for answering the legal question here. The legal question here should be answered starting from looking at the intent of the person in possession of the object (based on the details given I see no nefarious intent and I assume that is what a "reasonable person" would conclude. In addition considering a 2nd amendment defense's validity based on the assumption that the foundation of the amendment was that people should have the right to carry arms is hugely flawed and is only a skin deep view of the amendment. The foundation for the amendment, backed up by historical record, is that the people as individuals and as a body whole, have the right (predating and innumerated in the constitution) to defend themselves. Defense is the object of the amendment! Not simply bearing arms! For f&*% sakes! Why is this so difficult?

Nearly anything can be used as a weapon. Just because it wasn't designed as a weapon shouldn't preclude its possession just because some judges or lame-brain on the street think its scary. An objects use or intended use is what should be protected or prosecuted, regardless of the original design intent of the object.

"Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm -- but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves." – T.S. Eliot

"The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - St. George Tucker

A careful definition of words would destroy half the agenda of the political left and scrutinizing evidence would destroy the other half. - Thomas Sowell

"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow...

For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." - Jeff Snyder

Personal weapons are what raised mankind out of the mud, and the rifle is the queen of personal weapons. The possession of a good rifle, as well as the skill to use it well, truly makes a man the monarch of all he surveys. It realizes the ancient dream of the Jovian thunderbolt, and as such it is the embodiment of personal power. For this reason it exercises a curious influence over the minds of most men, and in its best examples it constitutes an object of affection unmatched by any other inanimate object.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum